DLA mobility appeal judgement

dori2o

tokenfield wrote: »

Exactly what I said. People will never stop trying to make out a case for DLA even if the needs they have were never envisaged when the benefit was first devised. The mobility element is simply for those that are physically unable and virtually unable to walk.
The next thing we will hear will be someone that has a boil on their bum, making it impossible to walk or maybe they have an aversion to daylight & moonlight?

What you fail to understand is that there are a number of factors that can lead to someone being unable/virtually unable to walk.

That is why we have case law. These decisions have been deliberated over by the necessary people with the experience (far better than yours) and the knowledge (again, far better than yours) to make these decisions. Thats why we have Upper tier tribunals and the Court of Appeal so that these issues can be resolved.

tokenfield

dori2o wrote: »

What you fail to understand is that there are a number of factors that can lead to someone being unable/virtually unable to walk.

That is why we have case law. These decisions have been deliberated over by the necessary people with the experience (far better than yours) and the knowledge (again, far better than yours) to make these decisions. Thats why we have Upper tier tribunals and the Court of Appeal so that these issues can be resolved.

Maybe but what you have to remember is not what the law says but what the spirit of the law was when it was enacted.
I can't see any politician thinking or it even crossing his/her mind that being incontinent would constitute the inability to walk. I doubt very much that the law would not have been voted for if they gave that scenario due consideration.

rogerblack

Ah - 'the spirit of the law'.
What a fun phrase.
Does this mean that the law should be interpreted as ministers describe it, rather than as it is actually written?
I question if most laws can have spirits - sure if they are uncontested ones agreed with by everyone in parliament, and drafted well, perhaps.

But the spirit of a contentious law much fought over and amended must be a tattered thing indeed.
Do you follow the spirit of the original legislation - though it may have been utterly rewritten in committee, or the spirit of a wrecking amendment that is intended to water it down to nothing?

Spirits should be kept out of politics, though often it seems that they are imbibed too heartily.